@romanigypsyeyes, don’t let judgmental comments and notions of others’ moral superiority upset you. We all know that there are plenty of people who stay married who are not in “loving, working relationships”, and there are many who live together who are good, upstanding people who are very much in love and committed to one another.
Read the article I linked above. Millenials are doing quite well in their relationships compared to older generations, particularly as it relates to having fewer sexual partners and infidelity.
All that said, THIS particular couple doesn’t sound like a good bet in the living together category because their relationship has been fairly volatile, and the unknowns about the other couple make it seem a risky venture. None of this has anything to do with “morals” though.
SOS, I get where you’re coming from. And I don’t really think you need to be convinced otherwise re your personal values.
But obviously, some here are sensitive to words that sound like value judgements. That’s understandable, too.
Traditionally, preserving oneself was in large part about men’s uncertainty about women’s independence. In many ways, we’re past that.
And many here are emphasizing that living together was not a commitment they took lightly. Sure, there are some who are immature or insecure. There will always be some who jump into either marriage or living together, thinking it cements a relationship. But it helps to look at the individuals.
"Romani: Nothing changed from before the wedding. Nothing.
I remember reading many, many comments on here telling me that things would change after I was married and to come back and let people know if it did. Nothing did. We’ve been married for 2.5 years now and not a day is different from before we were married. "
This is actually not true. Before, it was just living together, completely without legal, spiritual, or any other kind of actual obligation… Afterward, you entered a covenant.
"SOSconcern: We have a family member that lived with a guy for many years in her 20’s; she wanted marriage and was hoping they would get married; he broke up with her/moved out, and in less than a year was married to someone else. "
I can’t tell you how many times I saw this over the years.
Not in my world. I can’t tell you how many times I saw this over the years. Your world seems very sheltered. Which is part of the point. One size doesn’t fit all. Not everyone sees the world as you do or judges things based on your values. Many don’t need a legal or religious covenant to know in their minds and hearts what commitment is (or isn’t as evidenced by a divorce rate that shows it really isn’t worth more than the paper it is printed on for many folks). Besides, as pointed out here a few times statistics show that living together before marriage is increasingly commonplace.
I agree, not an anomaly. I know plenty of people our (parents) age who lived together before marriage. The piece of paper isn’t what it is all about. If this is the person they indeed end up in a decades long relationship with, then whether they lived together for a short or long time before they got married is absolutely irrelevant. Any promise made to each other at a wedding ceremony better have already been made ahead of time in their hearts to each other. Living together doesn’t somehow “taint” the formalization of that commitment.
Int: There is no commitment in living together. That’s the entire basis - that there IS no commitment and people feel free to cut their losses if their emotions tell them to do so.
It can become a commitment, and sometimes does, when someone decides that the relationship is more important than just living together. But living together is squarely based on the lack of commitment.
I just want to throw one detail out there. OP said daughter was at a Christian college. That almost certainly means she can not have BF spend the night in her dorm room. In fact he might not allowed in her dorm room at all except for certain hours and under certain conditions. If BF is also a student in a similar dorm room this scenario might be the couple’s only plan for avoiding sex in the car or other undesirable locations. As someone mentioned upthread cohabitating might also be something that gets her kicked out of school depending on what she agreed to at enrollment.
@TranquilMind No, it isn’t, for some people. There are many reasons to live together before or instead of marriage. Many people just don’t buy into the whole marriage societal construct. Even my parents, who are in their 80s, feel that the practice of marriage has much less value/purpose in today’s world than it did historically due to many things including changing cultural mores, gender stereotypes, laws, economics, etc. Among their friends their age, there are couples living together outside of marriage, in some cases well over a decade. These are couples who often are widows/widowers. Likewise, younger people are doing the same, cohabitating and raising families without marriage yet very much committed to each other.
marriage does not = commitment (as evidenced by the divorce rate) any more than cohabitating = lack of commitment
It’s far from black and white.
Assuming that others share your value set and way of thinking when making personal decisions in their lives will lead to false conclusions.
You want her to become independent, meet people on campus, get involved, stay focused on academics…all more difficult when living off campus with a boyfriend.
My DD didn’t live with her HS BF when she went away to college, but she did visit him almost every weekend. She said she did that because she didn’t have friends. But she didn’t have friends because she was never around on weekends. By the end of freshman year they broke up, and she was mad that she “wasted” freshman year.
Doschicos: Don’t worry. I’m well aware that traditional morals are increasingly sneered at and discarded.
I will contend the very basis of living together is lack of commitment. No one is ever thrilled that the boyfriend asked her to move in in the same way that she is if he asked her to marry him. The second scenario is widely shared with everyone because people are proud of getting married and proud their sons or daughter are getting married. The first scenario is mostly on the down low. Why do you think that is?
There were good solid reasons for those morals though, religious and practical, and moral truth never changes, even though customs do.
My brother lived with his girlfriend back in the late 70s, and my Dad got VERY upset about it. About 2 years ago, my stepmother of 48 years died suddenly. Within 6 months, my Dad purged their house, gave a huge amount to charity, threw out decades of junk, sold the house, and moved to another city, into a really REALLY nice retirement community that has accommodations for completely independent living all the way up to full nursing home care. He is now 81 and is basically living with his “lady friend.” Both are widowed and say they have no desire to remarry, for various reasons. He seems genuinely happy, is “committed” to her in the sense that he loves her and wants to see no one else, and feels she will be his only relationship for the rest of his life.
If I understand the statistics correctly, those who cohabitate before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who didn’t. That does NOT translate to saying that those who cohabitate before marriage and go on to have long marriages are an “anomaly.” That’s not even close to being true.
Anecdotally, DH and I are in a circle of about 10 couples. 8 out of the 10 couples lived together before marriage. 8 of us are still married: one husband died while still married and one couple divorced. It just so happens that the couple who divorced did not live together before hand (but did have a fairly quick courtship, rushed the marriage due to religious beliefs about premarital sex). Again, I realize anecdotes are not data.
“No one is ever thrilled that the boyfriend asked her to move in in the same way that she is if he asked her to marry him.”
You’re granting WAY too much control/power to the male in relationships by assuming it is the man that dictates the conditions of the relationship, the decision to live together or get married. Many, many women are very happy to do so, nay even are the driver in coming to that choice. You assume every young woman is waiting with bated breath to catch a man and put a ring on her finger. That’s not how it is in 2018. This isn’t a 1950’s sitcom. Plenty of young folks in my area and social circles live together. It’s not something anyone hides from family, friends and coworkers because there is nothing on the down low. It’s just a standard practice. More often than not, it goes - date awhile, if it works out then you live together (see stats in previously linked article on how common this is), then you may or may not get married.
Morals constantly change, much bigger ones than that of living outside of the socially constructed practice of marriage. The abolition of slavery , racial justice, gender equality - should I go on? Remember that our current version of marriage isn’t very old at all. Historically, marriages came about as strategic alliances between families and that wives were often viewed as the property of their husbands.
"If I understand the statistics correctly, those who cohabitate before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who didn’t. That does NOT translate to saying that those who cohabitate before marriage and go on to have long marriages are an “anomaly.” "
Correct. I does not translate because it doesn’t factor in to the fact that, as one example, those more likely to be open to living together are also more likely to use divorce to get out of a marriage that is no longer working. There is no pressure to stay in a bad relationship due to religious, cultural, familial, or other pressures.
This may still be true in some circles, but for many young people, it doesn’t accurately reflect their current way of living.
My daughter and her boyfriend, whom she had been dating for two years, moved in together when she was 24 and he was 27. This reflected an increase in the commitment between them, not a lack of commitment. In fact, it involved the two of them moving to a new city together, which is a very big commitment indeed. There was nothing down low about it. Everyone around them knew that they had gotten an apartment together, and as far as I know, everyone approved.
As time went on, they did additional things that reflected further increases in their commitment to each other. They combined some of their finances. They bought a car together. They got engaged. They bought a house together. And then, a little more than three years after they first started living together, they got married.
Why didn’t they get married three years earlier? Because they didn’t feel ready yet. They needed time to grow up some more and let their relationship develop some more. I see nothing wrong with that. I’m proud of them now. I was proud of them when they were living together. No difference.
I don’t think one gets to use his or her moral code to state other’s choices are not commitments. Better to say, “Per my moral code.” Or, “Per the dictates of my religion.” Or claim it as your opinion.
And if your religion discourages (or doesn’t allow) divorce, the simple fact of remaining married is not what makes a happy marriage. Or make good parents.
Many couples don’t marry until they’re ready for children. Or other issues are simplified by marriage, the legal aspects.
The simple fact that divorce isn’t an anomaly shows how much this supposed higher order of “commitment,” via legalization, isn’t the perfection some think.
Oddly, it’s like college admissions. Just getting into a top college isn’t what ensures success. No magic diploma and honors are inked when you matriculate.
And no magic relationship success is inked on your wedding day. The paper isn’t what makes a relationship good or not. Plenty of marriages fail, plenty don’t respect their vows.